Sample Precedent File - Violation of Alcohol Policy

Charges 

Charge: Alcohol policy (Unsafe/Irresponsible Behavior)

Plea: Responsible

Verdict: Responsible

Vote: 5-0

 

Charge: Alcohol policy (Community Expectations Violation)

Plea: Responsible

Verdict: Responsible

Vote: 5-0

 

Charge: Failure to Comply

Plea: Not Responsible

Verdict: Responsible

Vote: 5-0

 

Charge: Property/Facilities/Services-Property

Plea: Not Responsible

Verdict: Not Responsible

Vote: 5-0

Sanction(s)/Appeal

Sanctions (Vote 5-0):

Suspension for one semester

Disciplinary Probation for remainder of academic career

Substance abuse counseling within two weeks of return to campus

 

Appeal: Yes

Grounds of appeal: Verdict 

Appeal outcome: Denied

Narrative

#2628, a Trinity senior, was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in the XY parking lot during the graduate student basketball campout in the fall of 2005. The case was referred to the Undergraduate Judicial Board. The university policy violations in question were: (1) Alcohol Policy (Unsafe/Irresponsible Behavior); (2) Alcohol Policy (Community Expectations Violation); (3) Failure to Comply; and (4) Property/Facilities/Services-Property Damage. #2628 pled responsible for charges (1) and (2) and not responsible for (3) and (4).
 
#2628 acknowledged to the panel that she consumed 7-10 beers in an hour-and-a-half while playing Beirut at the campout and then moved her car within the parking lot. #2628 said that her reason for returning to her car from the campout was to attend to her injured finger that she had cut on a can. She explained that it was not her intention to drive. After learning from a security officer that her car would be towed, #2628 stated, she regretfully made the decision to move her car while intoxicated. #2628 has been unable to identify the security officer who suggested that she move her car. A witness described observing an argument between #2628 and a security officer who “[said] something about her being towed.”

Duke Police witnessed #2628 hit another car in the XY lot while she was backing up. At this point the police reports and #2628’s recollection of the events diverged. An officer observed #2628 back into another car while parking, to which #2628 admitted. #2628 and the officer agreed that there was no damage to either car as a result of the collision. The police officers noticed scratches on the side of #2628’s car, however, and hypothesized that #2628’s car had struck another car parked adjacent (no one witnessed a side impact). The officer was not able to recall seeing any damage to the other car. #2628 was able to provide pictures of the damage to her car that seemed inconsistent with a parking collision. Additionally, witnesses testified that the damage to #2628’s car existed prior to the night in question. For these reasons, the panel found #2628 not responsible for Property/Facilities/Services-Property Damage.

Upon arrival on the scene, the Duke Police officer testified, he suspected that #2628 had been drinking after he smelled a strong odor of alcohol on her. He requested that #2628 perform the standard field sobriety tests, which she failed. He described #2628 as reluctant to perform the tests, verbally abrasive, and mocking of the procedure. The officer described her as “not fully cooperative,” twice beginning a test before he finished delivering the instructions. At one point she performed a handstand. In her closing statement, #2628 acknowledged that she had exercised bad judgment and should have been more cooperative with the officers. She also apologized to the officer.

At the magistrate’s office, #2628 took an Intoxilizer exam and was rendered legally intoxicated. While there, #2628 did not give her name and personal information immediately when asked. The officer told the panel that #2628 identified herself as a graduate student. #2628, on the other hand, said that she never claimed to be a graduate student. Eventually, #2628 did provide accurate information about her identity. When brought before the magistrate,  she continued her verbal harshness and was threatened with contempt of court by the magistrate. #2628 explained that her lack of cooperation was in response to chauvinistic behavior initiated by the officers. The officers denied any such improper conduct. The panel acknowledged that #2628 was highly concerned about the injury to her finger and potentially being unfairly charged with damaging a car. The board did not find that these circumstances mitigated #2628’s responsibility for Failure to Comply, however, and found her responsible for a violation of that policy.

The panel proceeded to sanctioning for the three policy violations—Alcohol Policy (Unsafe/Irresponsible Behavior), Alcohol Policy (Community Expectations Violation) and Failure to Comply. The panel was informed that #2628 was already on disciplinary probation, and this factored into the severity of the sanctions. Given the magnitude of the Irresponsible Behavior and Community Expectations Violations, notably that #2628 could have caused serious injury to herself or another person in the community, compounded with her general lack of cooperation with the police officers, the hearing panel decided to issue a one-semester suspension during the Spring 2006 term. The panel strongly considered a longer period of suspension, but took into account #2628’s acceptance of responsibility for the major policy violations and her precipitating conversation with the security officer. After her suspension, #2628 will remain on disciplinary probation for the remainder of her academic career at Duke. Within two weeks of her return to Duke, the board required that #2628 meet with an alcohol specialist at Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and that she follow any recommendations set forth after that initial assessment.

The panel observed serious reflection on #2628’s part regarding her decision to drink and drive. The panel also heard #2628 speak about her criminal proceeding and the numerous potential consequences of that process. She spoke of her commitment to make serious changes in her pattern of drinking alcohol and partying. The panel believes that #2628 can successfully complete her Duke education and take steps to ensure that she never again puts others at risk by driving under the influence of alcohol.